Committee holds HB254 and advances RS32460 on ballot-authentication and anti-duplication measures

Representative Tanner asked the House State Affairs Committee to hold House Bill 254 and to introduce RS32460, a related draft that adjusts statutory language about official-election-ballot identification and provides guidance for modern ballot-authentication technology.

Tanner said the change addresses a statutory mismatch: current language about unique markings is keyed to optical-scanner-era practice, while newer systems can generate randomized unique identifiers for individual ballots. He told the committee the draft seeks to accommodate systems that can assign unique IDs while preserving voter anonymity. “The unique identifier can never ever identify the voter,” Tanner said, and “the unique identifier must be non sequential. It has to be randomly generated using a randomizing algorithm.” He also said the identifier must be assigned before a ballot is submitted to the tabulator.

For counties without the capability to generate a unique identifier, Tanner said the draft preserves alternative options including watermarked or security paper, holograms, or stamping “official election ballot” on ballots when issued. He noted specialized voting systems for voters with disabilities that print on thermal paper cannot receive watermarks, and that counties use a variety of mitigation steps.

County clerks testified in support. Rick Hogeboom (identified in testimony as a county clerk) described tests showing that where a vendor’s scanner records unique identifiers, a duplicate ballot with the same serialized number will be rejected by that scanner; but he warned that if duplicate ballots are run through separate, non-networked scanners they could be accepted. “We’re making best efforts to mitigate,” he said. Trent Triple (county clerk testimony) and Jennifer Locke, Kootenai County Clerk, also testified that counties use check-in records, polling place counts and other manual and electronic safeguards to match ballots to voter check-ins and to detect anomalies during canvass.

Representative Akiles moved to hold HB254 in committee; members approved the motion by voice vote. Akiles then moved to introduce RS32460 and advance it to the second reading calendar; that motion also carried by voice vote.

Tanner estimated no state fiscal impact from the bill itself and provided per-ballot cost estimates from vendors when asked: he cited roughly 10¢ a copy for watermarking and a higher estimate of about 25¢ for holograms in conversation with vendors, while saying counties are not required to purchase new systems under the draft.

Ending: House Bill 254 was held in committee and RS32460 was introduced and sent to the second reading calendar. County clerks signaled support for measures that codify current mitigation practices and authorize newer technology while emphasizing that no single step eliminates all risk of duplicated ballots.